Scottish politics

I'm still catching up after a few days without internet. I've learnt lots through this thread - about MW posters as well as Scottish politics! I'm also grateful if this thread keeps the politics out of the tennis threads.

I haven't voted in the MW poll, and as a Rest of UK resident don't get a referendum vote - quite rightly I think. I'd be tempted to vote "No" but it would be entirely selfish and sentimental, and nothing to do with who subsidises whom, or other economic questions.

It would be based on being brought up in a family that had a great affection for Scotland with some wonderful holidays there, and also because I value having so many Scots as part of my daily life as a citizen of a very diverse UK (although there are several I could do without), and I've no idea how or whether that might change with indepenedence.

...but back to politics. Intrigued by claims that Scotland could be like Norway, a bit of googling on that country has been interesting. Apparently even a lot of the Norwegians don't realise that their huge oil wealth fund has been built up over the last 20 years by a rule that limits the use of oil revenues

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/04/22/few-aware-of-oil-revenue-rule/The rule itself limits the amount of oil revenues that can be spent every year to just 4 percent of the size of Norway’s sovereign wealth (oil) fund, also known as Statens pensjonsfond utland or the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. The fund, now the second-largest of its kind in the world, was set up in the 1990s to save oil revenues for future generations and prevent too much money from flowing into the Norwegian economy and setting off inflation.

The political goal is for Norway to maintain its oil wealth in perpetuity, long after North Sea wells may run dry, by only using an average of returns from the oil fund and not dipping into the fund itself. The “real returns” of the fund over time have been calculated at 4 percent, hence the 4-percent-handlingsregelen

I'm still catching up after a few days without internet. I've learnt lots through this thread - about MW posters as well as Scottish politics! I'm also grateful if this thread keeps the politics out of the tennis threads.

I haven't voted in the MW poll, and as a Rest of UK resident don't get a referendum vote - quite rightly I think. I'd be tempted to vote "No" but it would be entirely selfish and sentimental, and nothing to do with who subsidises whom, or other economic questions.

It would be based on being brought up in a family that had a great affection for Scotland with some wonderful holidays there, and also because I value having so many Scots as part of my daily life as a citizen of a very diverse UK (although there are several I could do without), and I've no idea how or whether that might change with indepenedence.

...but back to politics. Intrigued by claims that Scotland could be like Norway, a bit of googling on that country has been interesting. Apparently even a lot of the Norwegians don't realise that their huge oil wealth fund has been built up over the last 20 years by a rule that limits the use of oil revenues

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/04/22/few-aware-of-oil-revenue-rule/The rule itself limits the amount of oil revenues that can be spent every year to just 4 percent of the size of Norway’s sovereign wealth (oil) fund, also known as Statens pensjonsfond utland or the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. The fund, now the second-largest of its kind in the world, was set up in the 1990s to save oil revenues for future generations and prevent too much money from flowing into the Norwegian economy and setting off inflation.

The political goal is for Norway to maintain its oil wealth in perpetuity, long after North Sea wells may run dry, by only using an average of returns from the oil fund and not dipping into the fund itself. The “real returns” of the fund over time have been calculated at 4 percent, hence the 4-percent-handlingsregelen

Elena.....If only everyone was like you, the UK would be a nicer place!

Talk about arrogance, the Minister for Defence went to Faslane yesterday to announce that the UK government were planning to spend a vast amounts of money for the design of New Atomic Subs. This is to be done in 2016, Does this not tell you what this government thinks about Scotland. What if the SNP win the referendum vote ? will the UK government withdraw the subs from Faslane, He also gave statistics about how many jobs would be created (as usual highly inflated). I'm afraid I take this with a large pinch of salt. Do Scots really want to be the prime target if a war breaks out. I do not think so did we have a say about nuclear subs stationed at Faslane I do not think so.

I too had read that about Norway Elena. They have recently purchased a share in the Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield. I also read that unemployment there is 3%, with youth unemployment anywhere between 7-9%. They also have mandatory military service for 18.5-44 year old men, though cuts in budgets mean that only about 10,000 a year actually take up service.

Also re LB's comment regarding nuclear subs. I was wondering if the SNP's wish to remain under the NATO umbrella would be taken as 1) actually we don't mind nukes, just not in our back yard and 2) supporting NATO and a target anyway?

The political goal is for Norway to maintain its oil wealth in perpetuity, long after North Sea wells may run dry, by only using an average of returns from the oil fund and not dipping into the fund itself. The “real returns” of the fund over time have been calculated at 4 percent, hence the 4-percent-handlingsregelen

An extremely long sighted bit of thinking. With oil depletion now occurring, unfortunately not an option for Scotland.

Talk about arrogance, the Minister for Defence went to Faslane yesterday to announce that the UK government were planning to spend a vast amounts of money for the design of New Atomic Subs.

That "vast sum of money" equates to 0.05% of the total governments total expenditure this year. A drop in the bucket really, and safeguards a number of incredibly high tech industries (and the high value jobs that go with them)

Quote

This is to be done in 2016

No, wrong. A decision will be made in 2016 on whether to go ahead with the Trident replacement. The detailed design work is starting now.

Quote

Does this not tell you what this government thinks about Scotland.

It suggests that the government is fairly confident in a "No" vote. That's about it.

Quote

What if the SNP win the referendum vote ? will the UK government withdraw the subs from Faslane

Eventually, and at massive cost to both countries.

Quote

He also gave statistics about how many jobs would be created (as usual highly inflated).

Highly inflated how? This article breaks it down quite nicely. 11,000 jobs in somewhere as deprived as Faslane is not to be sneezed at.

Quote

Do Scots really want to be the prime target if a war breaks out

If a real nuclear shooting war broke out, those who were "prime targets" would be the lucky ones. I'd certainly rather be incinerated in milliseconds rather than die from radiation poisoning or starvation in the inevitable nuclear winter.

Quote

I do not think so did we have a say about nuclear subs stationed at Faslane I do not think so.

Why should you? The population of the Midlands certainly didn't get a say in the 1960's. As with many things that are strategically important to the health of a nation - be it defence, power generation, waste disposal or mass transit - some people are going to be inconvenienced. If you delegate the actual decision making to the local communities involved, nothing would get done.

If you are so keen boogers why not move the subs to England. Local communities should be involved its called DEMOCRACY . Also I would dispute the number of jobs created the number would be about the same as the present.

I too had read that about Norway Elena. They have recently purchased a share in the Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield. I also read that unemployment there is 3%, with youth unemployment anywhere between 7-9%. They also have mandatory military service for 18.5-44 year old men, though cuts in budgets mean that only about 10,000 a year actually take up service.

from page 2:There are relatively few fees in for healthcare in the state system. Inpatient hospital treatment is free to all who qualify, but visits to doctors and specialists as well as prescription medicine incur charges. Citizens must also pay for radiology and laboratory tests and for non-emergency transportation. There are a number of exemptions e.g. for people who suffer from chronic disease, pregnant woman and those who have just given birth.

There are significantly high charges for dental treatment for adults, although some citizens receive subsidised dental care for prioritised patients. Under eighteens are entitled to free dental treatment.

The cost of prescription medicine falls into one of two groups termed the white class and the blue class. White class medicines are free, whilst blue class are subsidised.

I'm still catching up after a few days without internet. I've learnt lots through this thread - about MW posters as well as Scottish politics! I'm also grateful if this thread keeps the politics out of the tennis threads.

I haven't voted in the MW poll, and as a Rest of UK resident don't get a referendum vote - quite rightly I think. I'd be tempted to vote "No" but it would be entirely selfish and sentimental, and nothing to do with who subsidises whom, or other economic questions.

It would be based on being brought up in a family that had a great affection for Scotland with some wonderful holidays there, and also because I value having so many Scots as part of my daily life as a citizen of a very diverse UK (although there are several I could do without), and I've no idea how or whether that might change with indepenedence.

...but back to politics. Intrigued by claims that Scotland could be like Norway, a bit of googling on that country has been interesting. Apparently even a lot of the Norwegians don't realise that their huge oil wealth fund has been built up over the last 20 years by a rule that limits the use of oil revenues

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/04/22/few-aware-of-oil-revenue-rule/The rule itself limits the amount of oil revenues that can be spent every year to just 4 percent of the size of Norway’s sovereign wealth (oil) fund, also known as Statens pensjonsfond utland or the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. The fund, now the second-largest of its kind in the world, was set up in the 1990s to save oil revenues for future generations and prevent too much money from flowing into the Norwegian economy and setting off inflation.

The political goal is for Norway to maintain its oil wealth in perpetuity, long after North Sea wells may run dry, by only using an average of returns from the oil fund and not dipping into the fund itself. The “real returns” of the fund over time have been calculated at 4 percent, hence the 4-percent-handlingsregelen

I met a guy the other day who has retired from a fairly senior job at BP and he said that future Scottish oil was worth next to nothing anyway because it costs so much to get it out of the ground with the wind and rain and all our environmental rules and regulations. BP and American oil companies can get far more oil and far more cheaply in developing countries.

Talk about arrogance, the Minister for Defence went to Faslane yesterday to announce that the UK government were planning to spend a vast amounts of money for the design of New Atomic Subs. This is to be done in 2016, Does this not tell you what this government thinks about Scotland. What if the SNP win the referendum vote ? will the UK government withdraw the subs from Faslane, He also gave statistics about how many jobs would be created (as usual highly inflated). I'm afraid I take this with a large pinch of salt. Do Scots really want to be the prime target if a war breaks out. I do not think so did we have a say about nuclear subs stationed at Faslane I do not think so.

Getting rid of Trident is the only thing I agree with SNP about. But how do they reconcile that with membership of Nato which they have just voted to keep?

I believe the term you're looking for MT is cherry picking. Like the SNP don't want to be part of the UK, but oh, well, they'll keep the pound.

And independence will mean a strong, new relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It will create a partnership of equals - a social union to replace the current political union. That means, on independence day, we'll no longer have a Tory government, but the Queen will be our Head of State, the pound will be our currency and you will still be watching your favourite programmes on the BBC. As members of the EU there will be open borders, shared rights, free trade and extensive cooperation.

But still no plan how most of this is to come about, from what I can see on the interwebby.